Physics for vehicles

[metalcraze 290]

I have to agree with ICEBREAKR on this one. All too often I see posts on the forums or see conversations on Skype that shoot down potential game improvements. The responses range from "what more do you want" to "it's not that kind of game". In previous versions of the games we used to play rock/paper/scissors, but with tanks and lightposts. Most times the lightposts won. Then there were landing lights that would destroy a vehicle, etc. I guess what I'm getting at is that when we point these things out to the devs, they tend to get fixed. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, so to speak.

Some stuff BIS doesn't make not because they don't want to or people don't demand it enough but because no current or upcoming PC will be able to handle it.

The complaints about low FPS never stop and with PhysX coming things will become even worse.

It isn't just rendering something that you won't see 5 seconds later like in most engines, it's keeping track of it forever (or until the mission is over) anywhere since it's RV-rendered battlefield we are talking about.

[batto 17]

Some stuff BIS doesn't make not because they don't want to or people don't demand it enough but because no current or upcoming PC will be able to handle it.

I think you/they can't know how will feature X affect performance until you/they start working on it. And if this feature has big performance impact it needs to be optimized. I don't know much (almost nothing) about this stuff, but I guess it's more about development resources than state of current hardware...

---------- Post added at 03:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------

By the way, if someone would like to see some inspiration for good physics for vehicle driving I recommend Richard Burns Rally. It's best and most realistic race simulator I've ever played (that exists?). It's almost unplayable without wheel :).

[Pulverizer 1]

Even OFP managed to keep the state of uniquely deformed and damaged (window damage, invidual tire damage, overal damage) vehicles in memory.

It's only a matter of implementation. The deformation could be reduced to dozen vertices that bend the model. That way the damages could be synced in MP really cheap.

[metalcraze 290]

^^If just optimizing stuff to get an infinite improvement in FPS was realistic there would be no point in having better hardware.

Physics is usually a very CPU-heavy stuff. And one thing when it's a game which removes/restores damaged stuff 50m away and the other thing is constantly calculating physics of everything on a 400 sq. km map. That's why I'm really worried if the same thing I currently can have in AA2 won't destroy FPS in AA3 just because of the ability to push boxes around

Even OFP managed to keep the state of uniquely deformed and damaged (window damage, invidual tire damage, overal damage) vehicles in memory.

In OFP it wasn't unique and there were not many vertices - and there certainly were no physical calculations involved even close to what we are used to now in games with deformations.

Also OFP was quite laggy on those PCs too. BIS always goes ahead of hardware with what an engine can calculate and engines are much more than shaders.

It's only a matter of implementation. The deformation could be reduced to dozen vertices that bend the model. That way the damages could be synced in MP really cheap.

Yes but you will get people complaining about an "outdated engine BIS plz change it cuz in GTA IV damaeg looks bettar !!1".

No implementation is better than an ugly half-finished one.

Edited November 7, 2011 by metalcraze

[freeman83 10]

At the end of the day, their is no point in us all arguing about it, or being so sure that something does or doesn't work. The brains at BIS know what the current hardware and their engine is capable of, and if something will work im sure they will try to implement it. I'm just amazed at how in game/sim forums all over the web people are so sure of what they are saying, and how quickly ideas are disparaged.

At this point, i would love a Dev to set us straight on the matter:D

[katipo66 94]

I'd prefer more building destruction, looks cool but don't think that level of vehicle destruction nesecary yet, I think we can start asking for it around Arma4 :)

Edited November 7, 2011 by Katipo66

[Pulverizer 1]

In OFP it wasn't unique and there were not many vertices - and there certainly were no physical calculations involved even close to what we are used to now in games with deformations.

Shit, I guess you are right. I could've sworn that sometimes vehicles got totally scrambled inside out while in other cases they'd just get a little origami-look to them.

Yes but you will get people complaining about an "outdated engine BIS plz change it cuz in GTA IV damaeg looks bettar !!1".

No implementation is better than an ugly half-finished one.

People always complain. Since when did you care about such people?

I think deformations' primary function would be to look funny, and they'd be only more so if implemented in a typically half-assed manner :D Secondary function would be to see when a vehicle has taken some beating of course.

[BobcatBob 10]

btw. VBS2 2.0 will use RV3 ;)

Wait are yous serious!? OMFG :eek:

[dmarkwick 261]

Shit, I guess you are right. I could've sworn that sometimes vehicles got totally scrambled inside out while in other cases they'd just get a little origami-look to them.

I think you're right: my memory of OFP damage is one of a random scrambling of vertices, perhaps it was the same each time, perhaps it was random each time, dunno. It did the job at the time though :)

[purepassion 22]

Yup :)

Down at the bottom (Roadmap) ;)

And guess what's also on the list: "Realistic Vehicle Damage"! :D

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

I wonder how much of that will make it into A3 though? There were always features available to VBS that weren't available to Arma in the past.

[PuFu 4600]

Yup :)

Down at the bottom (Roadmap) ;)

And guess what's also on the list: "Realistic Vehicle Damage"! :D

Good find

I wonder how much of that will make it into A3 though? There were always features available to VBS that weren't available to Arma in the past.

Most of the engine features that were available in VBS2 and not in Arma at release date was related to AAR, editor, and tools (and some scripting commands that would't have brought much to the table from a game experience either way). I challenge you to post something worth mentioning from you, the gamer.

You really need to stop comparing the two. BUT all in all VBS2 will have upgrades that are designed specifically for A3 (improved physix and proxys included).

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

PuFu,

I understand that VBS is not a game. I also understand that this is not the thread to discuss it in. As for me the gamer, I had always dreamed of tractor-trailers or the ability to load vehicles onto a flat bed, or the ability to load a vehicle onto a landing craft, or FLIR, or articulated vehicles. These options were first available to VBS. That is what I meant when I said "There were always features available to VBS that weren't available to Arma in the past."

Respectfully,

FM

[CarlGustaffa 4]

If they just can make proper dampening/shockabsorbing of vehicles, that would go long way on its own - make ATVs fun to use (today they bounce like crazy, sometimes even when standing still). And ultralight vehicles like bicycles, motorcycles, and ATVs should be able to flip by a single player.

[Bee8190 10]

Would be also nice to see planes loosing and/or getting damaged their gear when landed roughly

[Cripsis 10]

I wonder how much of that will make it into A3 though? There were always features available to VBS that weren't available to Arma in the past.

For certain much of VBS2 1.5 technology is going to be shared with ARMA 3.

Slides 53 through to 58 look very familiar.

http://www.slideshare.net/BrianLucke/vbs2-introduction-v15-details-8415168